Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Capp, you haven't "pointed out any 'missing connected principle'". I stated what the connections are, and you ignore them. It's that simple. "Gay" always meant one definite concept (merriment), and at the time it was adopted to refer to a completely unconnected concept (sodomy), it did not have sexual connotation. I noted the earlier failed attempt to establish the word as euphemism for sexual misdeeds and did not ignore it. I established that the word is in fact euphemism, does not say what it means, and served an evil purpose, enabling the attaining of social tolerance and approval of the evil, which it demonstrably has.As for Rus, when I point out a missing connecting principle in your argument and you say, none is needed, what more can be said? but I trust that those bearing witness have, at least on some level, seen what your argument amounts to.
It really has to do with the spirit of the thing. Taking even your own salvation for granted (as Protestants like to do) is generally a very wrong--perhaps heretical--thing to do.Matt - I think that reinforces my point actually. How could it have existed for 400 years as the premier teaching of the Church and not have caused major problems if it was wrong? And it didn't start being a "problem" until Augustine's ideas began to be promoted in the Latin Church.
BTW - someone has suggested that St. Justinian had very strong Latinized teaching and sympathies, which would mean that if this is true, he would be influenced deeply by the legalistic ideas of Roman society and imprint them on his understanding of the Scriptures.
Do you know if this is true and also, do you know if there are books out with St. Justinian's writings in them? I would be interested in reading him. Search for truth, ya know?
It seems like Fr Tom was a very Holy man with a passion to help others. Despite that, he is a human man, and thus is not infallible. As is the case with all Orthodox Christians, theologians, clergy, monastics and laypersons, Holy Tradition, including Scripture, trumps all teachings should they differ. I think the good should be taken, while remembering that he isn't infallible. He has reached out to many and made a huge difference (in a good way) in many lives. Just my 2 cents.So, just to summarize, it seems on this count that the crucifixion of Fr Thomas was a little premature, as he seems to have had something reasonable and defensible in mind?
A lot of things from a western convert's perspective are a lot easier if you just accept it as a mystery rather than doing what is the initial reaction of analyzing how it works.
It does not entail divinity would change, as the change is alienation between hypostaseis. and in any case, this change can e caused by the incarnation. without entailing two hypostaseis or persons in Christ. There is no reason why both cannot be true, the perfect indwelling and the total alienation. and this does not contradict johns gospel
Well, sure, but when we tried to press on a concrete example ("He denies the ever-virginity!" - where people even remembered what book it was from), it turned out to be... nothing. So I think we need to be even more careful than that!It seems like Fr Tom was a very Holy man with a passion to help others. Despite that, he is a human man, and thus is not infallible. As is the case with all Orthodox Christians, theologians, clergy, monastics and laypersons, Holy Tradition, including Scripture, trumps all teachings should they differ. I think the good should be taken, while remembering that he isn't infallible. He has reached out to many and made a huge difference (in a good way) in many lives. Just my 2 cents.
Honestly, I'd say what I wrote above about every Orthodox Christian...well, the part about him not being infallible.Well, sure, but when we tried to press on a concrete example ("He denies the ever-virginity!" - where people even remembered what book it was from), it turned out to be... nothing. So I think we need to be even more careful than that!
That's the point.....Origen mixed the teaching of Patristic Universalism with his strange ideas of the pre-existence of souls. But the point that no one seems willing to tackle is that this teaching was all over the Church in the first several centuries. Origen was not speaking of some odd teaching. Of six theological schools that existed, four of which, including Alexandria, taught apokatastasis. Only one taught ECT.
In regards to apokatastasis, was Justinian concerned with orthodoxy theology, or keeping the masses in line? Nothing like a good threat of hell forever to make people obey you. One can certainly see his orthodoxy in the first 8 anethemas which he appended to the council, but the ninth one I would say it seems reasonable to question, based on the above quote in red.
One could say that of Augustine as well when you look at what original sin and penal substitution did to Western thinking.
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a Church dogma. And let's hope we remember to distinguish between the two, because conflating them lead Rome to prosecute Galileo for denying Aristotle's theory of geocentrism.Frankly, my sincere hope is that anti-evolutionism is anathematized, so
Well, that was then, this is now. Too many Orthodox Christians now think they have never never anathematized, so need a fresh reminder.St. Theophan the Recluse said that Darwinism would be anathematized, but there's no need, since such teachings were already anathematized long ago.
I agreeWell, that was then, this is now. Too many Orthodox Christians now think they have never never anathematized, so need a fresh reminder.
Well, that was then, this is now. Too many Orthodox Christians now think they have never never anathematized, so need a fresh reminder.
So do you all promote Young Earth Creationism as the only acceptable account in Orthodoxy? Or are you just against Darwinism? (Personally, I don't adhere to Darwinism, but I wouldn't be opposed to Old Earth Creationism. I'm not sure how everything worked exactly, but I know that it is an amazing fact that God created this World and that He created us, so I am happy and thankful knowing that, no matter the details). Most of what I've read outside of TAW in modern Orthodoxy, as well as my priest, says that Orthodoxy insists that God created the world, and that He intelligently designed the world, but they have not insisted on Young Earth Creationism. They even suggested that the Bible is not a science textbook, and that Orthodox Christianity didn't teach the fundamentalist YEC position was necessary. Please note that I am not making a statement of my beliefs here. I am just requesting clarification of your positions.
Evolution or Creation Science?
Evolution, Creation and the Hidden Cause - Glory to God for All Things
Ok. I figured that was your belief based on your posts. That said, what is acceptable according to the Church today? I've always heard that there is a range of beliefs accepted (with TAW honestly being the exception to what I've heard).I am a Young Earther, as that is the only explanation of our origin the saints affirm
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?